Our Sponsors:

Read more »

Trending Stories

Our Members

Many thanks to Judith Lightfoot and David Hyde some of our many supporters.


Most Commented


    Dignified death in the wings

    Why Washington's Catholic health care institutions won't block physician-assisted death
    Former Gov. Booth Gardner's much-publicized support contributed to passage of Washington's assisted-death law.

    Former Gov. Booth Gardner's much-publicized support contributed to passage of Washington's assisted-death law.

    Initiative 1000 becomes Washington's Death With Dignity Act (DWDA) on March 4, giving physicians the right to assist terminally ill patients to end their lives with a lethal prescription. As the deadline nears for putting the controversial law into effect, much of the uncertainty centers on whether medical institutions opposed to it can prevent associated health providers from participating.

    Those raising the issue are primarily Catholic-associated hospitals and hospices that are morally opposed to the principle of the DWDA. Some of the larger ones, such as PeaceHealth in Bellingham and Longview and Providence Health and Services in Spokane, are the largest health providers in their communities.

    PeaceHealth in November announced it would not participate in the DWDA, and would prohibit its employees, including doctors, from participating or from referring patients to doctors who would participate. In communities where such opt-out organizations are the dominant health-care providers, the worry is that the law, passed by a large margin, would be negated.

    Not likely, says the Oregon attorney who drafted both the Oregon and Washington laws, and was involved in the legal battles that engulfed Oregon's law after its passage by initiative in 1994. The policy is simple, Eli Stutsman told Crosscut: "Those who are opposed [to DWD] should not be forced to participate, nor should those who want to participate be precluded from participation."

    In Oregon, says Stutsman, the prospect of hospitals or hospices barring their employees from participation is "a non-issue" because there are so many other alternatives, even in small communities with dominant facilities who are opting out.

    Non-participants, such as PeaceHealth, can only deny participation to its direct employees, Stutsman notes, with agreement from PeaceHealth's Ross Fewing, director of spiritual care for PeaceHealth in Whatcom County, where PeaceHealth employs about 97 of the county's estimated 400 physicians and operates the only hospital. Stutsman and Fewing both say that a doctor who simply has hospital privileges does not lose the right to participate in DWDA. Nor does the prohibition cause serious problems for hospice care administered by non-participants, because most hospice care takes place in patients' homes or private facilities.

    Stutsman believes that the Oregon law, the nation's first, introduced a community conversation on end-of-life issues that was new and refreshing. Advocates, he adds, are available in most communities to work with those who want to explore the DWDA, and referrals to cooperating doctors are part of their service. Although Washington's medical association opposed the initiative that established Washington's law, the views among individual doctors are, not surprisingly, mixed. In this way, the state's doctors will be right in line with Oregon's physicians.

    In Oregon 2008, the 85 prescriptions written for end-of-life use were written by 45 different doctors. Forty of the 341 Oregonians who used the law since its inception were under the care of a Catholic health-care system or a physician working in one, George Eighmey of Compassion and Choices of Oregon, told the Seattle Times.

    Oregon had to overcome hurdles that are unlikely in Washington. An effort to repeal the measure was defeated at the polls, and an effort by the Bush Administration to negate the law was struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court. Once Oregon's DWDA actually went into effect in 1997, it proved to be less dramatic than opponents expected, and today seldom makes its way into the news.

    Fewing, a medical ethicist, believes conflicts over the law are not as sharp as they might initially appear. "We will never abandon a patient, nor will we dictate what a patient and his or her doctor can talk about," he emphasized to Crosscut. The underlying but unspoken message is that, as in Oregon, ways will be found to connect a patient to a physician willing to participate in the DWDA. Counselors and assisted-death advocates will be that link in most cases.

    Medical historians and ethicists have long known of the underground practice by some physicians who provide medicine to patients facing imminent death and who wish to terminate a life that has become untenable. The Hastings Center, a nonpartisan institute dedicated to research in bioethics, notes in its handbook on physician-assisted death:

    Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism. Become a member of Crosscut today!


    Posted Tue, Feb 10, 12:50 p.m. Inappropriate

    From over 50 years in health care I know there are many situations where physicians are helping patients end their lives. I voted for the law so that the decisions will be made by the patient, not surreptitiously with family members. But what also has to be addressed is that intractable pain is often due to inadequate medical care.
    Recently, I talked with a 90+ year old woman with severe foot pain that kept her awake at night. Her physician was reluctant to prescribe anything other than OTC pain relievers that weren't helping. She had to get assertive with him for a narcotic that finally gave her relief after weeks of sleeplessness. This was an MD from a major city hospital - unbelievable in this day and age that this woman was allowed to suffer with a well documented physical problem. But I realize there are situations where the best possible combinations of drugs aren't enough, and those patients should have the option of ending their life.


    Posted Wed, Feb 11, 11:05 a.m. Inappropriate

    Easy solution. Just contact the people that kill the unborn to kill you.

    Tragically, we are becoming a people who care little about human rights or human dignity even we pretend we do.

    If the innocent unborn and the terminally ill are groups not deserving of compassion and help in surviving how does anyone believe that tomorrow the next group or groups of people we want dead are the disabled and elderly who aren't terminal but a "burden" on the government? (It's already a fact in the Netherlends that this is the next step.)


    Posted Fri, Feb 13, 3 p.m. Inappropriate

    The terminally ill are deserving of help in surviving, and nothing about I-1000 changes that. As for deserving compassion, that is why I-1000 was written and passed. It is the opposite of compassion to force someone to live out their last few months, weeks, or days in pain, against their will.

    You make it sound like I-1000 mandates forced euthanasia.

    Posted Tue, Oct 18, 10:25 p.m. Inappropriate

    The state of Hawaii could possibly be the 4th to enact a “Death with Dignity” law enabling terminally ill individuals to commit physician-assisted suicide. Many believe that the dying should be able to determine their own death if they desire to end their suffering, but there are an equal number of people that do not agree. Article source: Hawaii might already have Death with Dignity law


    Login or register to add your voice to the conversation.

    Join Crosscut now!
    Subscribe to our Newsletter

    Follow Us »